Speaker: Legislating in the Twilight Zone
87 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Now that we've got those two ideas separate, are you trying to suggest that our right to free speech isn't about freedom?
No, I'm suggesting that your right to free speech isn't linked to how much money you have to spend on spreading your free speech around.
-
Kyle, you seem to be saying that I should be free to express myself in some ways, but not in others. That sounds to me a lot like a restriction on freedom of expression, or "free speech" as you seem to like to abbreviate it.
<>< -
No, I'm saying putting your speech in a newspaper or tv advert, on thousands of pamphlets, or yelling at people through a megaphone, doesn't make it free, it just makes it widely distributed.
If I have a thousand dollars for an electoral campaign, and Bob Jones has a million dollars. Does Bob have a thousand times as much free speech as me? No. We have exactly the same rights to free speech, just a lot more people are going to hear Bob.
The government comes along and says "well that's hardly fair, no one can spend more than two thousand dollars in the election of Kyle Matthews vs Bob Jones." I spend my thousand, Bob spends two thousand. Bob still says exactly the same things, the media still reports on both of us, but Bob prints way less pamphlets and does no TV adverts. His free speech hasn't been affected, as he said exactly the same things, just less people heard.
An attack on free speech when you say something, and fascist dictator bully boys round you up and put you in prison for saying it, or shut down the newspaper that was going to report you saying it. That's what unfortunately happens in some places in the world.
As far as I can tell the EFB is an attack on various forms of electoral advertising. I think it's demeaning to what I consider to be real issues of free speech in the world (like, monks who recently died in Burma for protesting) to say that the EFB is a massive attack on free speech.
Free speech to me is a very important principle. I believe that once we start thinking about free speech coming through having and spending money, we can come to the conclusion that people with less money have less free speech, and that's not right. And we also demean the suffering that goes on in places throughout the world for what I consider to be real struggles to have free speech, where it's not an issue of money, it's about not being persecuted for saying what you believe.
-
Kyle, you seem to be saying that I should be free to express myself in some ways, but not in others.
As far as I'm concerned, you can express yourself how you want. Interpretative naked dance on the life cycle of the garden slug might be interesting.
Personally I don't care about the EFB. I don't think money buys elections very successfully. I'm not just aware that the next time you express a political opinion in the buildup to the elections, someone's going to leap out from behind a pot plant and drag you away for your verbal discontent, which is the image that came to mind from some of the frothy ranting that some of the opposition talking heads.
-
In the New Zealand I thought I knew, most people figured this bill was trying to achieve something important: To limit the power of a few to swing elections using the sort of wealth the rest of us can't hope to compete with.
__and__
no more than a handful of people want to spend more than $120,000 on electioneering
Well sure, we don't want to get into a situation similar to US politics where a war chest of $30million is required but...
Where did this cap of $120k come from? As anyone in advertising knows, this will buy you SFA. National purportedly spent $800k on TV ads last election and Labour $400k. So clearly the $120k figure is yet another sop to the minor parties in order for Labour to get the bill passed.
Okay, so if you argue that it's 'unfair' for a rich party to outspend a poorer party because that disadvantages the smaller parties ... can we expect to see similar changes to the Commerce Act as we have in the Election spending Bill?
How can poor old locally owned Burgerfuel ever hope to compete with that big nasty multinational conglomerate MacDonalds? McD's are one of the top buyers of TV advertising - how is Burgerfuel expected to compete?
Or is that next on the agenda?
-
I'm not trying to compare the EFB to Burma. I realize, Kyle, that you didn't accuse me in particular of making that comparison, but I thought I'd clear that up, anyway. I'm honestly very grateful that we have much more freedom of expression here than the citizens of Burma have had recently.
The Bill does restrict your freedom to express yourself in certain ways---for example, by buying too many advertisements. Once we've decided that we're going to make minor restrictions to freedom of expression, we need to be very careful about how we do it.
As currently worded, the bill would restrict your freedom to stand in the Octagon, telling the general public to "vote for a party that cares about the environment"; unless you also tell them your name and address, you will have wilfully contravened section 53, and will be liable for a fine of up to $10000. If that was enforced, we'd be quite far in the Burmese direction.
Fortunately, even if the bill passes in its current form, that sort of thing won't be enforced, because there are sensible people in New Zealand's Police and sensible judges in New Zealand. But that's not the point. To quote from my submission again:
The mere existence of such a law will act to suppress expression of political thought, because of the uncertainty about the limits of its application. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that future governments will be so lenient with its application.
<><
P.S. The debate on the second reading is starting now.
-
P.S. The debate on the second reading is starting now.
And its a complete zoo. National can't win the argument on limiting their secret cash, so they barrack like a pack of baboons.
-
Hmmm... people seem to have calmed down a bit now.
If you can't tune in, I'm liveblogging it here
-
As currently worded, the bill would restrict your freedom to stand in the Octagon, telling the general public to "vote for a party that cares about the environment"; unless you also tell them your name and address, you will have wilfully contravened section 53, and will be liable for a fine of up to $10000. If that was enforced, we'd be quite far in the Burmese direction.
I'm not sure how this will turn out - there seems to be debate on the issue, but the bill was a confused mess so I gave up trying to understand it.
But I don't see that as a restriction on your freedom of speech, I see that as a tagline you have to add to your speech. "This message by me, here's my address." Inconvenient, but not exactly oppression.
You can still say that, or pretty much what you want. That's a long way away from the Burma direction, where the monks didn't just forget to give the home address of their monastry. They were dragged off for the message.
-
Kyle, you are quite right - the problems in this bill are not even remotely like the issues in Burma or Fiji. I do think they are the step in the wrong direction though. Some commentators have raised the issue of secret ballots, and I think this is a fair point. If we think requiring names and addresses from individuals making public political statements is okay, why not abolish the secret ballot? The answer in both cases is that people may be intimidated from participating freely in the political process.
I think the name and address thing is just a mistake. But the bill seems to have many mistakes. We now have the spectre of the 2008 election being one of the <i>least inclusive ever</i>, due to the risk of prosecution and litigation from <i>getting it wrong</i>. If people don't know where the boundaries lie, they are less likely to participate.
Bit of a shame really.
-
That's a long way away from the Burma direction, where the monks didn't just forget to give the home address of their monastry.
Sorry, I may have given the impression that I was getting a little carried away in my previous comment. Let me clarify.
Fining someone $10000---or even $1000---for failing to give their name and address when speaking to the public in the Octagon would be a massive departure from the liberty that we're used to enjoying in New Zealand. The direction of that departure is the direction that Burma has gone, but a fine is still much less worrisome than the violence we've seen recently in Burma.
I guess it's a bit like the bill, but the other way around. The select committee has done a great deal of work that has pushed the bill in the right direction, but it still has a long way to go.
<><
-
All done; the bill passed 65 - 54, with national, ACT, the Maori party, Copeland and Field against.
Anne Tolley complained the select committee process was undemocratic as the minority opposing the bill were continually outvoted. I don't think that word means what she thinks it means...
-
Anne Tolley complained the select committee process was undemocratic as the minority opposing the bill were continually outvoted.
I/S - you well know what she was saying. Democracy isn't just about majority rule, but also the protection of the rights of the minority. In a select committee that includes being consulted, and having your say (even if, ultimately, the other side is successful)
One particular complaint she laid was that National didn't have a say over the formulation of the Anonymous donations regime. The Greens, with Labour, UF, and NZF got together agreed its formulation then came to select committee, read it out as a fait accompli, and got it drafted by officials.
Another was that the major policy discussions occurred for several hours on Mondays - not the usual meeting time of the committee, making it hard for members of smaller parties Act and the Maaori Party to always have someone present.
These were the concerns about the select committee being undemocratic, and I'm surprised you don't agree with Ms Tolley that democracy must include protections for minorities to be worthy of that name.
-
Graeme: I'd find it easier to take National's complaints seriously if they'd ever tried to be constructive on this bill. They didn't, and were sidelined as a result. There is simply no point in trying to seek "consensus" with people who have already indicated that they are not interested.
-
I'd find it easier to take National's complaints seriously if they'd ever tried to be constructive on this bill. They didn't, and were sidelined as a result.
Oh, come on Idiot/Savant... it seem pretty clear from the beginning that Labour wasn't interested in having National involved in the formulation of this bill from the beginning, which is not surprising but please spare me the faux indignation when someone has the gall to state the bleeding obvious.
There is simply no point in trying to seek "consensus" with people who have already indicated that they are not interested.
Yes, and I actually think 'consultation' involves seeking out - and paying genuine attention to - people you know aren't going to tell you what you want to hear.
-
Yes. I think if you are genuine about consultation, you have to commit to it when it's hard. Not just when it's politically convenient.
-
I think the Nats had every opportunity to do what they did on the s____g bill and come up with some constructive suggestions. Instead they chose the yelling and screaming approach.
making it hard for members of smaller parties Act and the Maaori Party to always have someone present.
The Maori party has more MPs than UF. ACT could solve their problem with lack of MPs by getting more people to vote for them?
-
The direction of that departure is the direction that Burma has gone, but a fine is still much less worrisome than the violence we've seen recently in Burma.
Hmm. I haven't done a survey, but I don't think anyone has been arrested/dragged off/killed, for failing to give their name and address in Burma. I think it was the bits before the name and address that gave them the problem, not something we have a big issue with here.
I mean, I think it's silly if you have to give your name and address when making an election related speech, as my understanding was that the bill was about electoral finance, not electoral activity. But I don't have high expectations of the current parliament in terms of producing quality legislation.
ACT could solve their problem with lack of MPs by getting more people to vote for them?
If only they'd thought of that before the last election ;)
-
Oh, come on Idiot/Savant... it seem pretty clear from the beginning that Labour wasn't interested in having National involved in the formulation of this bill from the beginning
And it was very clear from the beginning that national simply wasn't interested in real reform. They thought that everything they did during the 2005 campaign was just peachy. They thought being able to collude with the Brethren, the Fair Tax lobby, and the Talley brothers was just great. They think that money in politics is just fine, and that other party's problems boil down to their not having enough of it. More imporantly, they indicated that they would not help provide the numbers for a serious reform bill, and would oppose it for political reasons no matter what. The latter especially makes talking to them a complete waste of time. Why bother to indulge them if they're not going to usefully contribute? Find a coalition you can work with (a very broad coalition in terms of political views), and get on with the job.
(or, in short, they'd said they weren't interested, and the government took them at their word. It's a bit rich therefore to complain about it).
National does have a chance to redeem itself during the committee stage, and I'll be watching closely to see whether the amendments they offer are constructive attempts at helping to create a genuinely better electoral regime, or simple wrecking behaviour. But looking at their past performance, I expect the latter.
-
Another thing to bear in mind BTW is the way in which MMP has changed Parliamentary and committee proceedings. In addition to the formal legislative process, there is also an informal process of coalition building and management, with ongoing negotiations between coalition partners to ensure the government has the numbers every step of the way. The government went into the EFB seeking the broadest coalition of parties it could - but the blunt fact is that if you are unwilling to contribute the numbers to help a bill pass, you get no input - it's that simple.
-
I/S, OK, so you're down on National, but don't you find it just a bit troubling that Labour is prepared to rush thru poorly conceived legislation in order to increase its chances of electoral sucess?
Now I understand that the bill is just leveling the playing field and understand the reasons (the EBs etc) and support the goals, but still, Labour's objective is to make their chances of re-election greater.
And in such a situation I would expect the Opposition to put up a bit of a fight. Labour have not handled this very well. If there had been less of a rush I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
-
The name and address bit is presumably supposed to be for the guy who's paying you to talk, or more to the point the guy paying for the mobile loudspeaker vehicle. I'm sure some clever lawyer can work out a way to legally differentiate them from people speaking off their own bat.
At the very least, if the name and address would be of the person speaking, it's probably OK to leave it off, ditto for making your own placards (though not for waving 'round mass produced 3rd party placards).
-
I/S - If the government is so scrupulous on the EFB, why didn't the select committee travel to Auckland to take submissions there as well?
-
I/S, OK, so you're down on National, but don't you find it just a bit troubling that Labour is prepared to rush thru poorly conceived legislation in order to increase its chances of electoral sucess?
I don't accept the premise. The bill is there to fix the serious problems in our electoral law exposed during the last election. And I would find it very troubling if a government did not try to fix them.
(Which is one of the reasons I'm so down on National: they deny there are problems, because they can and do rort them to their advantage).
And I don't accept there's been a rush either. The bill has had a full select committee process (which has improved it greatly, BTW). It will get a thorough airing in the committee stage. It is not being passed under urgency. There is a deadline to pass it, given that it must come into force on January 1 next year, but that's hardly unusual. This is the normal legislative process. If you think that that's undemocratic, then frankly, I think you have some pretty serious problems with our entire system of government.
-
I/S - If the government is so scrupulous on the EFB, why didn't the select committee travel to Auckland to take submissions there as well?
Because despite its pretensions, Auckland isn't the capital.
Select Committees sometimes travel to other centres to hear submissions, but its relatively rare, and there's no obligation to do so. Holding committee hearings elsewhere is a huge expense, and so even on important legislation, the vast majority of submitters are expected to travel to Wellington and present their submission there.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.